Quote from: as.exchange on Today at 10:56:50 AM

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members Cheesy

Addressing your points:

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc. I think we can directly conclude that they will make any system, no matter how perfect it is, biased again, so again we will come to the point where we started.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions might be not the most optimal solution, as myself forexample being non-expert in BioTech, I shouldn't be making any decisions there, but if given chance - I will (who knows?) then depending on "who scream louder" the rest of the crowd will follow the wrong source. Or, alternatively, if the society is smart enough, they will abandon the "average Joe's" proposition, and will naturally concentrate power around the ones with real knowledge and expertise (say in BioTech for example) and those, being humans by nature, will start to abuse the system again via the use of their new power.

I personally think that experts should make decisions on the area they are better than others, but if you let others make those decisions (including laws or codes) - it will be pretty. inefficient. Like if in simple terms - letting average person who knows nothing about tech and only cares about drinking beer in front of TV in the evening, decide about complex systems with consideration of advanced subjects from game theory, might be not the most optimal decision for the system population overall. That's partially related to off-topic discussion USA vs. China. In the US nearly every opinion was respected, while in China - not at all. And as a consequence, because too many people got their own opinion and scream very loud in the US, we have what we have, while in China government just silence the ones who disturb public order, and now it's on the way to become #1 economy in the world. Isn't that illustrative, that every opinion around the world, should not be respected and tolerated. Of course freedom of speech and self-expression is a basic human right and must be available to anyone, but not in the cases where it represents threat to the public order and social wellbeing.

And based on the proposed software, it's will be same with current KOLs inviting their followers to other communities. Like IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube, vs. "average Joe" inviting his FB friends to join his TG channel. The result with the new software will be same - effortless joining/leaving the community, and nearly same powers as they have in the current conditions.

I wrote another longer essay on your thread, and was going to reply there, but since you mentioned will continue here Cheesy

About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

And about the gov shutting everything down - it's well possible any moment when needed. In the world there are only few trans-national cables that host the entire WWW, and governments have control over flow and can cut it off if really needed, though it's pretty extreme measure, but we have seen countries doing so in the past few years.

As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers, that again comes to the same issue with BTC. Yes, you can allow just anyone from anywhere to run a node. But if I have right now $1,000,000, and you have only $100 - I can buy 10,000 cheap PCs, and you can buy only 1, so I will be more powerful again - same as without the new system, but with old fiat / asset way. Yes, you can say that it's possible to limit somehow number of PCs or computing power per user, which might be possible to implement (I don't know how actually, but let's assume it's possible), I can ask all my friends and relatives to let me use their identity or computing power for my own needs (since they might be not so tech savvy they won't care about what they give to me), and then I could pay to other people to get their computing powers & IDs. So again - who got the deepest pockets will control the majority of network.

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members
I hope they enjoyed reading the long texts and the serious discussions. Since the rest of internet is full of spam posts, memes and funny cats and… if they like.
I hope more people participate in this thread in order to finally do something serious and accomplish real work, not just complaining the world and endless talks.
As I supposed you are misunderstood the point. I admit it is hard to form the big picture, and needs some days to shape it. So I start from another point of view.

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc...
As a normal person can you please answer these questions honestly?
A: say you are in a situation that you have to decide to do act X or not do. You -because of your morality or believes- believe the true reaction is doing act X.
A1. will you do act X if you knew doing act X has no cost for you?
A2. will you do act X if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost you a little (may be you lost some dollars).
A3. will you do act X if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost highly (say loosing your house).

B: say you are in a situation that you have to decide about the act that person Y already did. You must declare your opinion about that act. was it a good act or bad act. And you already convinced that Y did the bad job.
B1. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has no cost for you?
B2. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has small cost for you?
B3. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has too cost for you?

Your answer most probably in cases A1 and B1 will be yes. Like other 99 percent of human.
Your answer in cases A2 and B2 depends on your “core values”. The another important factor for your decision is the society in which you are make this decision. In other word, you alone have less than 6 percent chance to scarify your benefit in favor of truth. But you looking to the society you are living and considering other people and the morality norms, in most societies the likelihood of the yes answer will be higher than 50 percent.
And always there will be less than .005 percent of society which in cases A3 and b3 will say yes.
I over simplified the situation for the sake of time, but the points are
1. reduce the cost of being good actor.
2. increase the chance of resonate, amplitude and synergy the goodwill of society members.
By these 2 strategies we are using literally our human nature (and do not forget human nature isn’t only bad habits

) to improve our life condition.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions…
I made a mistake about talking about Joe too soon, may I ask you to talk about it later, but just a hint for thinking, do you agree “right now, most of important decisions are not taken by experts or specialists, vice versa they are taken by greedy and corrupted politicians”? And most of time the decisions are contrary to exports. A simple example! Do you believe we have insufficient agriculture resources (globally) and because of that we cannot eliminate under-nutrition? In reality, we have more than enough, but “they” had decided to rule the world in this way. Now, where is the “intelligence” about this bad management done by “elite”, comparing the average Joe decision to “not wasting foods”?

USA vs. China….
The first economy in the world, the GDP, Economic growth indicators, … all are wrong addressing.
I am not a money hater, I like it, but there is a big fail in our mentality and rationality, particularly in economic. We take the resources (land, oil, cereals, livestock, water,…) and transform it to something else, in order to use it or consume it for another kind of product. In these transformations we increase the value of materials. The grape transforms to wine. Its values from x dollar increases to 4X. We created 3X value that we compensate it by something we call it money. So if you need more money you have to transform more and more grape to wine. So you have to sell your wins in order to get 3X money. You encourage people to drink more and more and over consumption, even they were saturated. What is the consequence? You are the biggest wine company in the world. You created 2000000000000000X value of growth in one year and you are rich. This 2000000000000000X dollar represents nothing than you ruined 2000000000000000X unit of grape. The resource that we have no replacement for that and we could use it wisely in next 1000 years! Is it rational? At the end what can you do with your 2000000000000000X dollar? You will invest it in another business to do the same catastrophe? Or FED prints another trillion dollars and devaluate your 2000000000000000X dollar to 1000000000000000X dollar! In best case (in sense of humanity and our civilization) you can be Warren Buffett and donate 99 percent of your wealth for common goods and charities. But can you tell me how much cost -directly/indirectly- you (Buffet) imposed on human condition?
There must be some reasonable reason for economic growth. The growth because of the growth itself has no sense. Do you agree? The growth because of competition (caused by fear) is even worse. Isn’t it?

About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

This is the part that I like to talk about the most. You probably didn’t read the other article in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
you can find the answer of some of your point there. Here I’ll explain some major difference between my proposed software and the other social networks.
The main difference is “data sovereignty”. The “data” refers ALL your personal information and ALL content you create. The “data sovereignty” refers to your data and the “treatment rules”. In my proposed social network, user own her/his data, s/he decides to how treat with her/his data. To whom show what, or what to be shown to user. Both are important and nowadays both are controlled by corporate s. They do not care users privacy and ownership of the data. They can ban or disable users account. They decide what feed to your personal page and your eyes and finally your mind. It is the way they control you, gaslight you and govern you. The majority do not feel that and indeed they do not care at all. Here the currency comes to the picture. Now people will care about their community. They hope the value of the money (tokens, shares or credit) of their community, which they have earned grow up over time and make benefit. So they start to constructive interact with community, cultivate their “common world”, learn and educate the principles, help to rise up community reputation and strengthen their money. These societies are not like a Facebook group or an online forum, because they make “their own rules” and not company rules. They set “their premier goals”, and finally they have an index to measure their excellence.
It will not like “IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube”. It is inviting people to freedom and “data sovereignty”.
One of those hundreds or thousands communities will be the “imagine” community. One that starts in a super centralized governing and moves toward super decentralized system day by day. I already sat its rules and monetary system. There are complicated mechanisms and I have to explain them in other thread -which I’ll do it soon-. So I can guarantee at least one community will exist that its goals are:
1. developing and maintaining the software itself in a most democratic and flexible possible way. Either development style or software features. (Obviously an open source and free software license).
2. developing and re-developing the community in order to implement maximum level of decentralization (either in rules or principles).
3. establishing an alternate “value system” in which who helps more the globe, gains more and maintain this rule as the “core value” of society.
These plans never happened in history and it is the first time in history that people can benefit because of their altruism action. I am pretty sure the model will work.
Even if we fail, we have built a system (including software and culture) that gifts too many good things, and on which the next people can do the next experiences. Isn't it clear that we have to do it regardless of the outcome?

And about the gov shutting everything down…
At the moment, this does not threaten us. It is an extreme exaggerated scenario that never won’t happened. Are you talking about North Korea or United State that 99 percent of vital activities are highly dependent to Internet?
Although In my design there are complementary solutions for dictatorship countries with high level of censorship and oppression, IP banning, low speed internet, and all other barriers for commercial, high speed services we are using freely in Europe and US.
This is not our today problem, once our community gathered hundreds of hacktivists and “specialists” who really care about human prosperity we will implement new solutions - instead of dummy, ineffective, neutral, useless, hard to use and incomplete, elite like solutions that now we are doing just to “hide the fact that we are actually do nothing”-

As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers,…
It is quite possible some community emerge based on hash power or another system resources – e.g. ram, memory space, or even printer resolution

- so who has more money earn more. But it is not the case. There is possibility to emerge another societies with different “value system” as well.
As an example I can tell you about “imagine” society which I am aware of. In imagine there are three option to earn society “shares” and “coins”.
A: A Skilled people can directly involve in software development, testing, documenting, design, translation, tutorial staffs, etc. her/his contribution will be compensate by shares in proportion to the hours (and quality of work) she/he did for system.
B: An entrepreneur can hire developers/translators,… and pay them fiat money as their salary and propose that accomplished task to community in exchange of the shares of community network.
C: An investor or a normal person with small capital can buy the coins or shares from other early adapters who did A or B.
BTW in early days (first 3 or 4 years) the coins and shares worth nothing, so no one will pay fiat money for those. It is a big chance for encourage people to do “real job” to make a “real product” that impacts on “real world”. No meaningless trading, No greedy speculation, No abusing the words like Blockchain, decentralization, cryptocurrency, smart contract. Instead educating and experiencing real meaning of decentralization.
Surely people will try to use(misuse) our software to fool others, cheat, fraud, make money, etc, etc. But we have an strong feature. “power of fragility”. Most of them before accomplish first cents will be disgraced.
Again as an example, in “imagine” community who will take the majority of network which helped the software more. And the software is free. So the outcome will be a great software by which people can establish other communities (either for making a new community and running their rules and money or simply because of being frustrated because of abused by social network companies and selling them and their freedom to market).
I described “imagine” community partially, hopefully you establish another greater community with greater rules that works better than “imagine”. That day definitely I’ll join to your community and leave that primitive “imagine” community and I’ll help your community members to achieve more excellence.
It is how the things will happened in our software. Just to speak precisely, the software name is “Comen” stands for Community Maker Engine.